Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 25th Oct 2017 21:58 UTC
Android

Today we're giving you an early look at Android 8.1. This update to Android Oreo includes a set of targeted enhancements including optimizations for Android Go (for devices with 1GB or less of memory) and a new Neural Networks API to accelerate on-device machine intelligence. We've also included a few smaller enhancements to Oreo in response to user and developer feedback.

Android 8.1 while literally nobody is even using Android 8.0 yet. OK Google, OK.

Coinciding with the Android 8.1 developer preview, Google also released Android Studio 3.0.

This release of Android Studio is packed with many new updates, but there are three major feature areas you do not want to miss, including: a new suite of app profiling tools to quickly diagnose performance issues, support for the Kotlin programming language, and a new set of tools and wizards to accelerate your development on the latest Android Oreo APIs.

Order by: Score:
CaptainN-
Member since:
2005-07-07

I still don't see why this is such a world ending deal for Thom. No one cares what version of Android they are running. Probably they are just happy the interface doesn't change every 3 months. That's more disruptive to most people than some kernel version, or whatever is still tied to the core Android version.

Apps work, the browser works, texting works, phone calls work, the camera still works.

BTW, new Android API features are routinely shipped to older Android versions, because that's how Androids SDK works...

Seriously, what is the problem?

(Also, I'm running Android 8.0 just fine thanks!)

Edited 2017-10-25 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 9

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe the problem is that it's not an iPhone....

Reply Score: 8

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

The monolithic way to develop and deliver operating systems and platform features is The One Pure Way.

Reply Score: 3

Literally?
by grat on Wed 25th Oct 2017 23:50 UTC
grat
Member since:
2006-02-02

Android 8.1 while literally nobody is even using Android 8.0 yet. OK Google, OK.


... so my Pixel XL isn't running Android 8.0.0 with Oct. 2017 security patch level?

Fascinating.

I suspect you are misusing the word 'literally'. Or perhaps you think I'm a literal nobody-- which is odd, because I thought I was a literate nobody. ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 07:56 UTC in reply to "Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I suspect you are misusing the word 'literally'. Or perhaps you think I'm a literal nobody-- which is odd, because I thought I was a literate nobody. ;)


https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html

0.2% is, indeed, nobody. I'm glad you're part of the 0.2%, but the vast majority of Android users running outdated software is not only a huge security threat, but also a huge problem for developers who can't target all the latest features for their apps. While Google does certainly take measures to mitigate the latter, the former is still a massive problem, even after 8 years of Android.

And since it'll take years and years for Treble to make any form of a splash - if it even does at all, since it's not a silver bullet at all - this situation seems unlikely to change.

Just because you're part of the 0.2% doesn't mean the problem magically goes away.

Edited 2017-10-26 07:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Literally?
by pmac on Thu 26th Oct 2017 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Literally?"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

Thom, I think you have a problem admitting when you're wrong. I agree with you on this whole issue, but you did misuse the word "literally", and to deny your mistake weakens the rest of your argument. If you refuse to accept that you're wrong, it hints at your having a closed mind, which just gives the impression that you're spouting nonsense from a soapbox. If you admit you're wrong then it shows that your opinion is reasoned, and adjusts to new information. I think you have a real problem with this, and you would become an even better journalist if you took this advice. Just saying, and meant as friendly advice. Take it or leave it.

(This is a general thing I've noticed, and isn't solely about "literally").

Edited 2017-10-26 09:24 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 09:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"Literally" has two uses - not just the one you're referring to, but also as a means to create more emphasis.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

":in effect :virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"

This is a pretty widely accepted use of the term "literally", even if some people are vehemently opposed to such usage.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Literally?
by tanishaj on Thu 26th Oct 2017 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Literally?"
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

"Literally" has two uses - not just the one you're referring to, but also as a means to create more emphasis.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

":in effect :virtually —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"

This is a pretty widely accepted use of the term "literally", even if some people are vehemently opposed to such usage.


English dictionaries eventually begin to add in the misuse of the English language as valid. It is how English evolves. See the "prepositional because" as an example. Normally, my personal take is that this is a positive quality of the English language.

That said, this one is some next level nonsense.

The dictionary authors seem to agree as immediately after the definition they felt compelled to call Thom's usage "illogical":

Should literally be used for emphasis?

Sense 2 is common and not at all new but has been frequently criticized as an illogical misuse. It is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.


Most ridiculously, the "emphasis" definition itself includes the word literally. This is a circular reference. Hilarious. If both uses of the word are valid, how should I interpret the word literally in this definition?

In my view, the proper use of the word literally in the "emphasis" definition displays not only exactly why the word literally is needed in the English language to begin with but also how meaningless the word becomes once the "emphasis" definition is given validity. The two forms of usage clash as either could appear in the same context.

To me, allowing these two definitions only serves to make any sentence using the word literally to become unclear and to reduce the usefulness of the English language in communicating ideas with fidelity.

Edited 2017-10-26 11:49 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Literally?
by bhhenry on Thu 26th Oct 2017 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Literally?"
bhhenry Member since:
2005-07-06

The dictionary authors seem to agree as immediately after the definition they felt compelled to call Thom's usage "illogical"


Methinks it time to quote Dr. Johnson: "When I had thus enquired into the original of words, I resolved to show likewise my attention to things; to pierce deep into every science, to enquire the nature of every substance of which I inserted the name, to limit every idea by a definition strictly logical, and exhibit every production of art or nature in an accurate description, that my book might be in place of all other dictionaries whether appellative or technical. But these were the dreams of a poet doomed at last to wake a lexicographer."

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Literally?
by pmac on Thu 26th Oct 2017 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Literally?"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

You're doing it again. "Literally", used in that sense, is not acceptable in all but the most informal usage. If you can find a serious journalist using it in the way you did, and not ironically, then I stand corrected. I think you're still just refusing to admit you're wrong, and I don't see what your problem is with being wrong. We're all wrong every now and then.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Literally?
by fretinator on Thu 26th Oct 2017 13:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Literally?"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

OMG, a person from another country uses a common US idiom, and the grammar nazi's come out in force. They literally don't get it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

OMG, a person from another country uses a common US idiom, and the grammar nazi's come out in force. They literally don't get it.


Nazis*.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Literally?
by fretinator on Thu 26th Oct 2017 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Literally?"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Love it!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you're still just refusing to admit you're wrong, and I don't see what your problem is with being wrong. We're all wrong every now and then.


...but I just explained that using "literally" in this way isn't wrong, and backed it up with a dictionary reference. Are you arguing Merriam-Webster is wrong? Languages changes - get over it.

If anything, you should be the one to admit you got it wrong. Literally.

Edited 2017-10-26 13:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Literally?
by pmac on Thu 26th Oct 2017 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Literally?"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

In my previous reply I accepted that that was a valid definition of "literally", I'm not sure why you failed to comprehend that. To repeat myself: no serious journalist would use "literally" in this way: it's not acceptable in any style guide I have ever seen. It is absolutely incorrect for you to use it in this way if you aim to show any semblance of professionalism. You know it was a mistake, I know it was a mistake, and everyone reading this knows it was a mistake. I'll retract my calling of you a journalist because that title should, and to me does, require a certain degree of honestly; something you're sorely lacking. Donald Trump does exactly what you do. It's not an honourable trait, and it's not one that garners respect. When you're wrong, graciously admit it and then move on, having learned a lesson.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Literally?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2017 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Literally?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It wasn't a mistake because I specifically chose to use this word for emphasis. You seem to imply I was unaware of my use of the word "literally" - I can assure you, I was not. I specifically opted to use it, and for a very specific purpose: for emphasis.

There are, in fact, countless instances of things on the front page right now that not too long ago, many people would frown upon. For instance, there are countless contractions - up until relatively recently, entirely unheard of. Had we been 30-40 years in the past, you probably would've picked my use of contractions to complain about.

Language changes. Using one arbitrary point in time - usually one's years at school, funnily enough - as the basis for the one definitive rule set for language is entirely idiotic.

You disagree with my use of the word "literally". That is totally fine, and as I said in my comments, that's an entirely reasonable point to make. However, arguing that your stylistic preference is somehow The One True Choice, whereas mine is the Devil Incarnate, is incredibly arrogant and misplaced - let alone the weird nonsense about me being unwilling to admit mistakes even though I literally did just that in these comments (i.e., stating that a number of people object to this use of "literally").

We can have a discussion about the various ways language changes or the uses of the word "literally", but you'll have to lose the arrogant, abrasive attitude of using our differing stylistic preferences as a Freudian analysis of my character, because holy fucking shit - go back to Wysteria Lane.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Literally?
by grat on Fri 27th Oct 2017 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Literally?"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I realize I started this whole snowball rolling, and I apologize-- I was making a small joke, and never intended it as serious criticism.

However.

I personally have to disagree with the dictionary reference you gave even though Merriam-Webster has a nice little article about it:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally

My problem is that the word "literally" is being used in a way that is inconsistent with the word "literal". English has enough inconsistencies already, we don't need to create more.

Also, use of the word "irregardless" raises my systolic pressure at least 2 points.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Literally?
by Morgan on Thu 26th Oct 2017 15:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Literally?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If you admit you're wrong then it shows that your opinion is reasoned, and adjusts to new information.


Something tells me that if Thom were to admit he was wrong (not saying he is wrong here, just saying in general) you would jump on it and call him "wishy washy" or say something like "how can we believe this guy, he doesn't stand behind his own words!"

Some people are simply never satisfied.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Literally?
by pmac on Thu 26th Oct 2017 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Literally?"
pmac Member since:
2009-07-08

I can promise you I would not. And I don't know what "something" is! :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Literally?
by Morgan on Thu 26th Oct 2017 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Literally?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Fair enough, I've just seen that kind of behavior on this site often enough to expect it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Literally?
by ahferroin7 on Thu 26th Oct 2017 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Literally?"
ahferroin7 Member since:
2015-10-30

OK, so there's an issue with updates. Google is working on that, even if it will take years. Stalling development of the upstream code just because the number of people who are running the newest version is less than some arbitrary threshold isn't going to help either, and in fact, could make things worse.

You wouldn't stop releasing security patches just because almost nobody has the most recent one, so why should you stop general development?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Literally?
by CaptainN- on Thu 26th Oct 2017 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Literally?"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Except it's not a problem on either of Thom's gripes - old versions of Android can use new Android APIs because that's how the SDK works, and older vendor tied "distros" (for lack of a better term) do receive updates...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Literally?
by CaptainN- on Thu 26th Oct 2017 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Literally?"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

Old versions of Android can use new APIs, because that's how the SDK works... You really are being stubborn on this one.

Maybe security updates are a problem, but my old devices do receive security updates, and most of the important sub-systems (like webviews) are updated through the play store anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Literally?
by kurkosdr on Fri 27th Oct 2017 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Literally?"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

Ff

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Literally?
by kurkosdr on Fri 27th Oct 2017 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Literally?"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

Just because you're part of the 0.2% doesn't mean the problem magically goes away.


I am still not convinced instant upgrades to new majors are a problem in need of solving. How many people upgraded to Windows 7 months after launch?

Nerds dream of a utopia were new major versions of the Android OS arrive instantly on all existing devices, but the market has shown loud and clear it just doesn't care. Yet people like Thom will get on their soapbox and scream "it's a problem! It's a problem! The GreenBot died for our sins and those OEMs are disrespecting its holiness".

If the market considered instant upgrades to new major versions of the Android OS a real problem, most people would be using Pixels and Nexuses. Yet they buy Galaxies.

If you Thom consider instant upgrades to new major versions of the Android OS a real problem, stop being cheap and buy a Pixel (Nexuses will get their last version upgrade with 8.1), and be glad your niche is served.

Now security updates are an issue, major OEMs (bar HTC) have committed to monthly updates for 24 months or so, and that's not good enough.

But whining about not getting a free upgrade that was never promised to you? Oh dear.

Edited 2017-10-27 00:25 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Thu 26th Oct 2017 00:52 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Android 8.1 while literally nobody is even using Android 8.0 yet. OK Google, OK.


My Nexus 5X says hi. It runs 8.0 and will get 8.1

And for Android 9 I will get the Pixel 1 or 2 (they will have depreciated nicely by then).

If you care about getting new Android versions quickly, you already have a Nexus or Pixel instead of complaining about it.

This doesn't prevent people like Thom from telling Galaxy S8 owners what they should complain about.

Security updates for old devices are a problem though, because unpatched old devices make the whole ecosystem less secure.

Edited 2017-10-26 00:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kurkosdr
by CaptainN- on Thu 26th Oct 2017 01:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by kurkosdr"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

My old Moto X (first gen) just got a security update the other day, running Android 5.1. It still runs all the apps.

Still don't know what the actual problem is.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by Shmoopty
by Shmoopty on Thu 26th Oct 2017 06:29 UTC
Shmoopty
Member since:
2011-01-03

My family and I literally don't exist?

If that is a joke, I don't get it. Should Google not update Android? Should they do it slower? Are you saying that the update discussed shouldn't change the version number?

I'm not sure who is deserving ridicule in this post. It's probably me or Google, but I don't see why.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Shmoopty
by Sidux on Thu 26th Oct 2017 14:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by Shmoopty"
Sidux Member since:
2015-03-10

Same could be applied for Windows Mobile, sadly.
Depends on how you look at a problem (i.e number of users or market share compared with other sources).
Most business decisions come from increased profit margins.

Edited 2017-10-26 14:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Android version and "experience"
by caudex on Thu 26th Oct 2017 12:40 UTC
caudex
Member since:
2008-07-05

My Samsung Galaxy S8 is on Android 7.0, but you know what? There's nothing I'm missing from 8.x. Samsung is so far ahead of the game, they're basically running the show. Only Google/pure Android fans think otherwise. They had split screen, picture in picture, hardware accelerated web browser, etc, long before Google even implemented it. I know most won't agree with me on this, but Google is basically just copying Samsung (and now Apple, with their expensive Pixel phones) these days.

Reply Score: 2

jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

My Samsung Galaxy S8 is on Android 7.0, but you know what? There's nothing I'm missing from 8.x. Samsung is so far ahead of the game, they're basically running the show. Only Google/pure Android fans think otherwise. They had split screen, picture in picture, hardware accelerated web browser, etc, long before Google even implemented it. I know most won't agree with me on this, but Google is basically just copying Samsung (and now Apple, with their expensive Pixel phones) these days.


I basically agree with that but you still need updates for the security patches.

And Samsung is not only terribly inconsistent there, but also it gets progressively worse as the device gets closer to its three-year lifespan (which by itself is a ridiculously short lifespan, especially for £700+ devices)

Reply Score: 4

Wrong word
by avgalen on Thu 26th Oct 2017 20:11 UTC
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

No, I am not going to complain about the word literally, because literally everyone else has been doing that literally in every post. It seems that literally smart people can literally say literally all the time because hyperbole.

What I am going to complain about is a missing word. Let's see if we can find it:

Android 8.1 while literally nobody is even using Android 8.0 yet. OK Google, OK.

Did you find the missing word? No? Here is a hint
Google releases Android 8.1 preview


That is right, Android 8 was released, the developers started to work on the next preview of the OS, and the guy running OSNews is complaining that there is a preview of Android 8.1 already. How dare those developers continue to develop!

It is time to stop blaming Google for the Android update mess. They are developing the OS and are giving it away for free. It is the OEMs and Carriers that need a major kick in the butt for the lousy support of their own customers. And customers should really start demanding decent support on their OS. I would suggest:
* 2 year version updates offered within 6 weeks after release, from the moment you buy the product
* 4 year security fixes offered within 2 weeks after release, from the moment you buy the product

Edited 2017-10-26 20:11 UTC

Reply Score: 5